This debate will be between whether Hillary Clinton should be indicted/jailed for her crimes against America or not. Pro will be for her indictment, con will be against. No trolling/false information. Wikipedia is NOT allowed, only legit sources. Basic format will start with my opening statement then the con's rebuttal if there is one.

It is common fact that Hillary Clinton is a liar. To start off i'll just give you a quick little video of some of the lies that exit her mouth. https://www.youtube.com...

I'll start with the email scandal since that's the most recent in the news. First of all, any potential President for the United States should NEVER be under FBI investigation. It makes absolutely no sense. It's no different than if I were to become a babysitter and i'm under investigation of child molestation. That alone is enough to deny her access to the White House. Or so us morale, logical, conservatives thought. A few days ago she was cleared from the investigation and is now under re-investigation. Trey gowdy interrogated FBI director James Comey asking a series of questions about Hillary Clinton's illegal email server. Here's a video https://www.youtube.com...

Now, if you have watched the video, James Comey clearly states that what Hillary Clinton was saying was incorrect and completely on the contrary to what she testified. There WERE classified documents. Even some of the up most classified among top secret files. There WERE emails deleted. Thousands WERE sent to different servers. There were multiple UNPROTECTED devices used for the emails. If the Secretary of State keeps undocumented classified files in a personal server, why should she be allowed to hold thousands of classified information as the president? You must realize how easy it is for someone to hack unprotected emails and have access to 30,000+ work related emails. With a common password generator I could access her account with the help of a few proxies in a matter of days and or weeks. There is no doubt how careless this woman is with her handling of important decisions. Hillary Clinton herself has stated many times that some actions were "A mistake", "A careless way to handle things" etc. Explain to me why such a careless person should be responsible for the welfare of the nation. The evidence is exceedingly obvious of her lies, and illegal actions. http://www.politifact.com...

Next I will move on to Benghazi. Once again, another horrifying event handled carelessly by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

During the attack the killed 4 Americans, democrats and Hillary claim there was no time to send military units to help rescue them. High ranking emails from the pentagon clearly asked Hillary Clinton to send help.

http://therightscoop.com...
"As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton"s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch."

http://www.allenbwest.com...
"This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come," Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement."

Once again. More undeniable proof that the State Department knew what was going on but they wouldn't sign off on allowing military aide to be sent. Why is that? Why would she lie to the families about what caused the attack. And further more, why would she lie about the attacks.

"What difference does it make" How disgusting. How utterly rude and embarrassing for her to make this statement which is quoted from Hillary after addressing the attacks in Benghazi. She even disrespects the families of those who died. http://townhall.com...
The utter disrespect is shameful. Can you imagine if Trump were involved in all of this? Or some normal American? Why does she get a free immunity card. The corruption is so undeniable it's not even funny.

I will remind Con the purpose of this debate is to argue the idea of indicting Hillary Clinton, not her eligibility as a candidate. So her your first paragraph is irrelevant to the scope of this debate. Now, as to the second paragraph, James Comey stated that she made a mistake, a mistake is not the same as breaking the law. She did not intentionally leak classified documents like in the case of Edward Snowden, so she did not violate a law there. And then once again Con goes into the argument on whether or not a candidate who is under investigation should be elected, which is a debatable topic, but not the topic of this debate. And on to benghazi, once again what law are you arguing she broke? The idea of jeopardizing more American lives seemed like to great of a threat and after the attack began it was no longer in Clinton's power anyway, at that point it was a military decision which would fall to POTUS. Now in your whole intro you made no claim as to what law she broke, and to your final argument. She did not get a free immunity card, she spent more time defending herself from congressional review than any person under trial would. She was investigated, and found not to have broken any laws by an independent agency that does not answer to anyone outside of the FBI. Therefore she should not be indicted for any claimed violations of the law.

I will remind the con that this debate is whether Hillary should be indicted for her crimes. That being said, eligibility of POTUS is in fact a part of this debate. If you are to be indicted you cannot run for president. I'll say it a second time. If you are to be indicted for a crime you cannot run for POTUS. Therefore eligibility to run for such a position is related. My first paragraph is not irrelevant. You are to refute each point I make. You did not. The next time you do not refute each point I make I will end the debate. I have no time for childish lawyering. James Comey specifically stated on the contrary to what Secretary Clinton had stated herself. She henceforth lied about having possession of classified documents in an un-secure server. That is a federal crime. Secretary Clinton also stated that they were not labeled classified. James Comey testified that they WERE labeled. Secretary Clinton claimed that No classified emails were sent or received. That is false. They were.

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters."

Hillary's testimony is contradictory to what FBI director James Comey had stated in court.

Con:
" And on to benghazi, once again what law are you arguing she broke? The idea of jeopardizing more American lives seemed like to great of a threat and after the attack began it was no longer in Clinton's power anyway, at that point it was a military decision which would fall to POTUS"

If you had read my entire post you would have noticed this.

"This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come," Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement."

Who was the head of the state department at the time? Hillary Clinton was. Therefore by her not signing off on any document and or OKing military aide they were left there to die.

"The idea of jeopardizing more American lives seemed like to great of a threat and after the attack began"
Are you kidding me? Do you have any knowledge of American Military robotics and ordnance? These men who died were part of a highly elite seal team 6 platoon. There were 160 green beret units on tarmac less than 900 miles away. Less than a 3 hour ETA.http://www.breitbart.com...

The pentagon as stated in my previous sources even wrote to the state department asking them to send units. These are specially trained marines. The opposing forces were half armed with fully loaded weapons. The other half had either broken weapons, and melee weapons. If you seriously doubt the prestige and effectiveness of the United States Marine Corps you seriously need to question why we are the most dominant military superpower in the world. We don't abandon our troops like that. Especially when an Ambassador is on the line. There were no reports of it being "too great of a threat" I would like to see your sources on that because I have found none.

"She was investigated, and found not to have broken any laws by an independent agency that does not answer to anyone outside of the FBI."

She is now under re-investigation. For the umpteenth time if you would actually take the time to read my entire post you would have seen that. The FBI in fact does answer to entities outside of the FBI itself.

What does the FBI do with information and evidence gathered during an investigation?

"If a possible violation of federal law under the jurisdiction of the FBI has occurred, the Bureau will conduct an investigation. The information and evidence gathered in the course of that investigation are then presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who will determine whether or not prosecution or further action is warranted. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, evidence is either returned or retained for court."

This therefore means that all information found MUST be presented to a U.S. Government attorney that will decide the outcome of the evidence. The FBI has no authority over prosecution. The Gov. Does. Almost anyone can be bought and paid for. Political bribery is common among the democratic party. This is getting off topic. You don't have to refute this point. I was just addressing a quote from your rebuttal.

You can end this debate like a child all you want, but my point is not wrong. If the subject of this debate was whether Hillary should be elected than her possibility of indictment would be relevant. But the topic of this debate has to do with her being indicted not her eligibility as a candidate, so her stance as a president has nothing to do with this debate. The best way to explain this to is with the square/rectangle analogy, a square is by definition also a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. And what were talking about here is 110 emails marked with classified out of 30,000 (http://heavy.com...). Which is less than half of a percent of the emails. And in those emails only a handful were correctly marked to begin with, so while mistakes were made. Not even the FBI believes that this adds up to a felony charge.

Now back to benghazi, not acting in a country that the US had no place to be in in the first place does not equate to breaking the law. Specifically what law do you suspect she has broken? She does not have the full power of the US military as secretary of state, and once their was conflict the president was briefed and also chose not to intervene. The head of any department is responsible for any failures along the way, that does not mean they perpetrated a crime.

I read your source on the FBI and it says they consult with other agencies but it does not say they answer to those agencies. The FBI was founded to act separately of the DOJ and is not required to work with them. They get government funding and are overseen by the DOJ but that does not mean they have to follow their commands. Comey had not even informed the DOJ of his decision not to pursue charges into Hillary.

You cannot become president of the United States if you are indicted for a federal crime in a federal position. It is against United States law. Being that I am the one who created this debate on her being indicted, and if you would have read the format I stated: "opening statement then the con's rebuttal if there is one." So telling me that what I post about her eligibility as president is irrelevant is denying the format. Her indictment has everything to do with her eligibility and this debate. It would be much simpler if the con would just refute my points made instead of lawyering his/her way out of it.

"Michael Mukasey, who was America's top law enforcer under President George W. Bush, told an MSNBC audience that Title 18, Section 2071 of federal law bars an official from holding future office if he or she 'conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys' them."

She committed a federal crime by deleting the emails and sending/receiving classified information in an insecure server. James Comey as stated before has re-opened the investigation http://hotair.com...

She is therefore not cleared of all charges until this investigation is closed. The con refuses to acknowledge the fact that a federal crime was committed in the handling of classified documents. I have now stated this in each one of my arguments and I await a rebuttal.

"Which is less than half of a percent of the emails. And in those emails only a handful were correctly marked to begin with, so while mistakes were made. Not even the FBI believes that this adds up to a felony charge."

A classified document is a classified document. There were even some among the small percentage that were of the up most top secret clearance levels. That is a major felony. For all we know that document could have contained the locations of nuclear munitions and/or top secret government official addresses. The fact of the matter is that she broke the law under Title 18, Section 2071 of federal law bars.

"Now back to benghazi, not acting in a country that the US had no place to be in in the first place does not equate to breaking the law."

We had every reason to be in Libya at the time. Not only where there counter-terrorists in Libya along with many other militias/rebels the U.S. was aiding in the war on terror. To take down and kill Muammar Al-Qadaffi.

"The goal, Obama explained, was to save the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protesters who found themselves the target of a crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi." https://www.foreignaffairs.com...

" Specifically what law do you suspect she has broken?" I have already sourced this but I will do it again. http://www.breitbart.com...

" She does not have the full power of the US military as secretary of state" This was already explained in my previous post.

"I read your source on the FBI and it says they consult with other agencies but it does not say they answer to those agencies. " The FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is a government created organization. The Government has complete control of appointment for a director. "The FBI is led by a Director, who is appointed by the U.S. President and confirmed by the Senate for a term not to exceed 10 years." https://www.fbi.gov...

DavidMancke, I fail to understand how me not defending Scooter Libby makes me not have an education, I can't keep track of every single political corruption case in the history of the United States. There is far too much but For one, that case does not seem like a top priority to me. Why is Hillary? Because she is running for POTUS and corruption has no place in the white house so I am simply informing the public. And who do you mean by "You people" I am not a republican or democrat. I call out corruption like it is in it's immediate threat. This is an immediate threat. I didn't have a debate.org account during that time. Hillary did not make a bad call, it is clearly shown in the evidence she did not have the intentions to keep classified documents secure nor did she care about the wellbeing of America due to her carelessness and lies to the media. I also don't get where you are getting the bible out of this. Your accusations have no backing and are simply just you blowing steam at the facts.

So where is your outcry for the pardon of Scooter Libby. James Madison said at the constitutional convention Presidents that pardon those that commit crimes advised by the president with the promise he would use the power of pardon to keep them out of jail ought to be impeached. In fact Madison wanted a Constitution provision requiring it.

You people love to scream about corruption of Hillary, but never got bent out of shape when such an overt misuse of power by GW compromised justice, denigrated the office, demonstrated overwhelming corruption and threatened our national security.

Now when Hillary makes a bad call regarding her emails out of misapplied but understandable paranoia, you folks won't let go until you have her nailed to the cross.

You have so sense of reason or justice. You folks are on a witch hunt and selectively apply standards of justice like a fool interpreting the Bible.

Again, I'm not insisting you be polite or decorous if that is not your choice. It just harms the validity of your claims when you threaten to end the debate because of "poor" rebuttal and then make broad claims about the entire Democratic Party in a debate you decided to make about a single politician. It's all your choice, and I cannot force you to agree with me on this, but it really makes no sense to act like that in a civil debate.

I didn't join this website to be told how I should conduct my words, if you have a problem with the way I organize a debate that I've started then maybe you should file a complaint to DDO's support system if there is one. The reason I threatened such a notion is because like I said I don't have time for childish lawyering. Which I don't. I invoke quite a bit of my time into each debate I have partaken in. To have that time wasted with nonsense to me is not a favorable use of time and I find it a nuisance. My claims are backed with "facts" i hold dear. For starters just the past few months three democratic associated peoples have been either convicted or indicted for scandals whether involving money or illegal actions of some kind.

2. Hillary. I don't think you need a source on that one as there are plenty in my arguments.

3. Loretta Lynch. Yet again sourced in my argument.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not supportive of Republicans that much either and they share scandals as well. I'm a constitutional conservative. Nothing more or less. This isn't a debate between you and I. I'm pretty sure my opponent is an able bodied human being and can defend his/herself without someone else doing it. I find it quite rude to even suggest such notions. That being said you can keep your recommendations to yourself.

Threatening to "end the debate" if the opponent does not respond to your standard is ridiculous. Plain and simple. You entered a debate, which means you are willing to hear the other side of the issue and respond decorously. Whether you care about the conduct point or not, I recommend a little bit of respect for the opposition. I would also refrain from making wild and off-topic claims like "political bribery is common among the Democratic Party"- it makes you seem like you don't prioritize the "facts" you seem to hold so dear. All I'm saying is a little bit of decorum and respect go a long way.

I did not spend half the round dissing the con. I stated that He/she did not read my entire post due to certain statistics being repeated and the clarity of the purpose of the debate. Determining emotions through virtual pixels is an impossible feat. I was not mad or conflicted with emotions at any part of the debate. I say things the way I say them for clarity. Whether I lose points for conduct or not is irrelevant to me. My focus in a debate is to present facts until they cannot be refuted.

I'd like to remind Pro that it is not within your power to force Con to refute every point you make. You spent almost half of this round dissing Con on his tactics rather than presenting your arguments in a calm, collected manner. That really could count against you when voters decide on who to award the conduct point. Just some advice- I don't want you to lose just because of conduct.